It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge: State ban on protests at military funerals unconstitutional

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by MessOnTheFED!
 


You're preaching at me about morality when you support violently lashing out at someone to stop them from doing something that is ultimately harmless and pathetic?

Do....Do you know what morality is?




posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


I think the only hope to stop Phelps protest would be if you met all the criteria for the Miller test (I thoroughly discussed the Miller test in a previous post).

However, I don't actually think he meets all three criteria... Further, anytime the courts rule against my freedom to speak, that is a victory for those that either don't understand the concepts of natural rights or don't believe that we deserve them. Either way, should the Supreme Court rule against Phelps that will be a ruling against us all.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by misinformational
 


I get it. Freedom of speech is a FREEDOM. I understand that. People can say whatever the hell they want. No matter what it is or who it is said to or about. But there is always a line that can be crossed. That line has been crossed with this bunch of creeps. Im not saying we need to strip away his rights at all. He chooses what words he says. Why not be held acountable for them?

MOTF!



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   
I have to admit that I only read the OP and none of the 4 pages. I am going back now, but I had to say this.

Protests should NOT be illegal! It is a violation of free speech and assembly rights.

On the other hand, if the family of the fallen soldier wants to take out some anguish and frustration on the protestors, the local police should have enough common sense to take their time responding, and not find any evidence of wrong-doing when they get there.

I am a Patriot Guard Rider. Our group was formed for just such an occasion. The protestors have their rights, and so do the veterans, and so do some angry flag-waving bikers that stand between the two opposing sets of rights!

Patriot Guard Website

The Patriot Guard Riders is a diverse amalgamation of riders from across the nation. We have one thing in common besides motorcycles. We have an unwavering respect for those who risk their very lives for America’s freedom and security. If you share this respect, please join us.

We don’t care what you ride or if you ride, what your political views are, or whether you’re a hawk or a dove. It is not a requirement that you be a veteran. It doesn't matter where you’re from or what your income is; you don’t even have to ride. The only prerequisite is Respect.

Our main mission is to attend the funeral services of fallen American heroes as invited guests of the family. Each mission we undertake has two basic objectives:

1. Show our sincere respect for our fallen heroes, their families, and their communities.
2. Shield the mourning family and their friends from interruptions created by any protestor or group of protestors.


You will not find a true Patriot that wants to limit the rights of Protestors, but you will also not find a true Patriot that is not willing to use their own body to stand between a grieving family and a disrespectful crowd!



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
reply to post by misinformational
 


I get it. Freedom of speech is a FREEDOM. I understand that. People can say whatever the hell they want. No matter what it is or who it is said to or about. But there is always a line that can be crossed. That line has been crossed with this bunch of creeps. Im not saying we need to strip away his rights at all. He chooses what words he says. Why not be held acountable for them?

MOTF!


You're crusading against this guy on the basis of morality whilst at the same time promoting violence against the guy.

Phelp's group at the most is idiotic and pathetic. You're both attributes plus a heaping helping of hypocrisy on the side.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
I guess it is ok for people to disrespect you whenever.


Yes, it is. Disrespect shouldn't be outlawed.


. How to not stand up for what is right. Morally right. Because we all know that morality sometimes trumps legality.


WE DO NOT KNOW THAT! Don't speak for other people! You're advocating legislating morality and I (among many) are VERY against that!

Go, Patriot Guard!



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Im not advocating anything of the sort. I know that is a dead end road. Im just saying that some people need to find their teeth on the street.

MOTF!



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by MessOnTheFED!
 


So again, I just want to get this straight and all...

You think a bunch of insignificant white people shouting god hates fags is immoral and disgusting yet advocating violence against these individuals is A OK and just?



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Im not advocating anything of the sort. I know that is a dead end road. Im just saying that some people need to find their teeth on the street.

MOTF!


I agree. Disrespect and Morality should never be legislated. However there are some immediate and natural consequences that often result from disrespect or immorality and those should be tolerated by law enforcement.

If someone cops a feel on my wife, I won't press "sexual battery" charges, instead I will cause that person some pain. In return, they should not press "assault" charges against me. It is all an honor code.

If I "disrespect" a bears territory, or I try to molest the bear in some way, I will feel some immediate and natural consequences. No need for outside law enforcement involvement. Some people need to learn about natural consequences the hard way, and some people don't mind being their teachers.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by misinformational
 




I agree the ban could set a frightening precedent.

The behaviour of the Pastor is reprehensible and I would query if Fred Phelps is the “full shilling”, the judge ruled correct and by doing so is protecting the rights of all.

The Supreme Court are reviewing this Autumn be interesting to see how they swing. Phew what a pickle



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by SpectreDC
 


yep.
2

MOTF!



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


As much as we may want to perceive it to be, violence is never justified. You're violating someone. That is the nature of the word and of the act. Chances are, if you are violating someone they may have violated you or at the very least you feel slighted by them.

All we end up with is a bunch of hypocrites slapping each other in the nuts. Is that really a good thing?



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by MessOnTheFED!
 


Well, congratulations on further exceeding my expectation of stupidity and irrationality on ATS.

I mean goddamn it, that isn't an easy thing to do.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpectreDC
reply to post by MessOnTheFED!
 


So again, I just want to get this straight and all...

You think a bunch of insignificant white people shouting god hates fags is immoral and disgusting yet advocating violence against these individuals is A OK and just?



I see what you are saying, but I am with MOTF here.

If those insignificant hollering white people are doing so in their own church or yard or rally, then of course nobody should be there bothering them.

However, if they come to a gay bar, or someone's place of employment or home, then they are no longer insignificant, and they are the aggressors, and they should be taught a lesson about bullying, taunting, and respect.

There are plenty of things probably offensive about me. If someone is offended by me, then I apologize for their feeling that way, but I don't intend to change, nor do I intend to cause them any grief about it. BUT, if they show up on the street in front of my house or work or favorite hangouts, and they begin shouting at me, then I will arrange for them to not do any shouting for a few months until the wires come off their jaws. I feel that is a justifiable response to someone seeking out my attention in this manner. They are free to hate me in their own spaces, but they better not bring it to mine.

Mutual Respect.
Otherwise, peace by superior fire power!
Either way I will remain happy, moral, and at peace with my God.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


And if you think by legitimizing what they are saying by recognizing it and reacting to it with violence is being at peace with your god and being a moral individual, well, I'm going to have to question what religious denomination you are or what your spiritual beliefs are and I'm also going to have to ask you to define "moral" and "being at peace".


People can only hurt you with words if you let them. You need to CARE about what they say. You need to allow the person the ability to harm you in that method.

It's a simple matter of not caring and ignoring. Attacking these people is not only immoral and wrong, but it's doing what they want. They WANT you to attack them so they can SUE you and TAKE your money.

That's what these guys do. It's their jobs.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SpectreDC
 


I agree with you that their "job" is provocation. I also agree with you that attacking them is exactly what they want and that a lawsuit would be their likely response.

I disagree on the morality of the issue. If I go into the woods and I scream at a bear until he finally attacks me, is the bear immoral? Or is the bear simply defending its personal space from an aggressive act? Is it even possible for a bear to be immoral?

Admittedly, I have never been good at "turning the other cheek." I worked at it awhile, and then I decided that God has other plans for me. I am willing to settle up with God at a later date, and I know that I am not perfect. For now, I live as morally and peacefully as possible. I have never been the aggressor in any situation. I would fight to defend the rights of protestors to make a political statement at the appropriate and respectful time and place. But, I have no problem with removing or disabling someone acting disrespectfully at an inappropriate time or place.

Too many people lean on Law Enforcement or Litigation instead of living by the natural order of things. Most people realize it is a bad idea to go into the ocean and taunt sharks, or go into the jungle and taunt a tiger. Most people realize that natural consequences do exist. Among mankind we have tried to create agents to disrupt the natural law. I think this is a mistake, even in child rearing. I teach my boys that if they disrespect the wrong person, they might suffer consequences. Why shield them from natural law only to have them learn the hard way later in life?



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by MessOnTheFED!
 


But that's just it - There is no line that one can cross - You're rights are yours no matter what.

The hardest part of keeping those freedoms is allowing those that use them in ways you don't approve of to continue to use them. Because as rights, they have no limits and they cannot be defined or restricted in any way - Once they start to become restricted (and many already have) it allows for those that care not for your freedom to abuse your freedom.

E.G. Patriot Act



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Are humans merely animals?


The ONE thing amongst ALL of our differences between humans and other animals are our minds. Our capacity for reason, logic, and understanding.

I don't care about bears or sharks. Bears or sharks aren't human.

We have something nothing else has, and we might as well recognize we have it instead of placing ourselves in with those that don't.

Again, words are words and no in the long term they don't hurt. They don't scar. They don't burn. They're words. And only a person you love, respect, or otherwise care for has the ability to hurt you with words. No one else should have that ability. If someone you don't care about is hurting you with words, you need to get your priorities in check.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by SpectreDC]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
This whole thing just shows how screwed up hate crime laws are......if he can't be held accountable, no one should. Hate speech is so often said not to be protected, yet people of his ilk are allowed to express what may pt pthers at risk of criminal charges for the same act. Double standard aimed at decent people again.......Phelps needs to choke on his tounge.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by misinformational
reply to post by MessOnTheFED!
 


But that's just it - There is no line that one can cross - You're rights are yours no matter what.

The hardest part of keeping those freedoms is allowing those that use them in ways you don't approve of to continue to use them. Because as rights, they have no limits and they cannot be defined or restricted in any way - Once they start to become restricted (and many already have) it allows for those that care not for your freedom to abuse your freedom.

E.G. Patriot Act


They shouldn't be restricted by legislation or law enforcement. That has nothing to do with overtly using your rights to torment another person and violate their own pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

I approve of the most radical people rights to their opinions. I see no problem with them educating and trying to sway others to their opinion. The problem is when they personally attack another individual intentionally. If they stand on a public corner immediately opposite of their target, and they use megaphones or shouting to torment their target, and they use personalized attacks to make sure their intentions and their intended target are very clear, then they are not exercising their rights, they are attacking another individual. Still, I will support their right to do so, if you will support my right to shove the megaphone up their rectum and advertise their flatulence to the same audience they were seeking!




top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join